The Trial Balance is CFO.com’s weekly preview of stories, stats and events to help you prepare.
Part 1 — Trump v. the Fed (again)
After publicly criticizing him multiple times this year, the White House said Friday it is evaluating options for removing Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell. President Trump has expressed ongoing frustration over Powell’s resistance to lowering interest rates, saying his decision-making is “political” and calling him a “major loser.”
“If we had a Fed chairman that understood what he was doing, interest rates would be coming down,” Trump told reporters Friday. “He should bring them down.”
Powell has largely avoided commenting on Trump’s criticism but has emphasized the Fed’s independence in managing the nation’s money supply. In November of last year, Powell said he would not resign if asked by Trump and has expressed a desire to complete his term, which ends in May 2026.
The outcome of this dispute could reshape how independent agencies like the Federal Reserve operate, potentially influencing monetary policy decisions that affect capital markets, business borrowing costs and long-term financial strategy.
Two Supreme Court cases are likely on the radar of White House officials. Wilcox v. Trump and Harris v. Bessent are now questioning the president’s authority to remove members of independent executive agencies at will. The current legal standard was set by Humphrey’s Executor v. United States in 1935, which held that agency leaders could only be removed for cause, such as inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance.
When asked about the potential implications of the case, Powell said last week he did not believe it would apply to his role. However, the precedent itself stemmed from a dispute that mirrors the current situation.
In 1925, William Humphrey was appointed to the Federal Trade Commission by President Calvin Coolidge. In 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt asked him to resign over opposition to the New Deal. When Humphrey refused, Roosevelt fired him.
Humphrey claimed his firing was unjust and continued to report to work, and after his death in 1934, his estate pursued the case, which resulted in the Supreme Court ruling Roosevelt’s decision was improper. The FTC was deemed a quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative agency, and therefore its commissioners were protected from at-will removal.
The Federal Reserve, like the FTC, is widely considered a quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative agency. Though Powell has downplayed the relevance of the case to his position, the constitutional question over presidential removal power that is being decided in both Wilcox v. Trump and Harris v. Bessent may significantly impact the autonomy of federal agencies.
Any signal that the Fed could be subject to political pressure may undermine market confidence in its independence. For finance leaders, even the perception of weakened central bank authority could sway borrowing costs, investor sentiment and risk management planning. For the U.S., the struggle between central bank autonomy and government power is as American as apple pie.
Part 2 — this week
Here’s a list of important market events slated for the week ahead.
Monday, April 21
Tuesday, April 22
- Philadelphia Fed President Patrick Harker speaks
- Minneapolis Fed President Neel Kashkari speaks
- Richmond Fed President Tom Barkin speaks
Wednesday, April 23
Thursday, April 24
Friday, April 25
Part 3 — What CFOs need to know about CPA licensure changes
As qualifications to sit for the CPA exam continue to change state-by-state, Jack Castonguay, who holds a Ph.D. in accounting and is an assistant professor at Hofstra University; Dr. Tim Naddy, vice president of finance at the Savannah Bananas and professor of accounting and Savannah College of Art and Design; and Calvin Harris, CEO of the New York State Society of CPAs share their views on how the process is unfolding and which parts finance leaders across industries should watch closely. This story will publish on Friday, April 25.
